21st century Baptists' position on 2 John 9-11

[JoChris]

2 John 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

How literally are we to follow this commandment? Currently there appears to be a lot of conflict among Baptist ministries online on separation from non-believers/ different denominations and how far we should take it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

2 John 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

How literally are we to follow this commandment? Currently there appears to be a lot of conflict among Baptist ministries online on separation from non-believers/ different denominations and how far we should take it.

The context (2 John 7) is specifically the doctrine of Christ coming in the flesh (i.e. God becoming true Man) and against the ancient heresy of Docetism.
Beyond that, every Christian needs to work out for himself from the Bible what is essential doctrine and what is secondary. In Britain, there is an organization called Churches Together which attempts to unite all so-called Christian churches--Quaker, Roman Catholic, liberal-- but it ends up with no Gospel to proclaim. IMO, separation should be around Gospel issues. i.e. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

 

[JoChris]

The context (2 John 7) is specifically the doctrine of Christ coming in the flesh (i.e. God becoming true Man) and against the ancient heresy of Docetism.
Beyond that, every Christian needs to work out for himself from the Bible what is essential doctrine and what is secondary. In Britain, there is an organization called Churches Together which attempts to unite all so-called Christian churches--Quaker, Roman Catholic, liberal-- but it ends up with no Gospel to proclaim. IMO, separation should be around Gospel issues. i.e. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Thank you for your response. As an ex-Catholic and ex-Charismatic I am probably more narrow-minded than many Christians today. The problem with your statement is that it goes on faith in theory only.

Charismatic churches claim they hold to a superficial version of Protestant beliefs, but they never preach it, defend it, focus on outward signs and wonders, measure a person's faith according to their testimony/ experiences/ tongues and if they preach on sin/ negative commandments (according to the flesh) they mention it in the vaguest way possible...

How can some Baptist preachers justify preaching/ working alongside Charismatics who have the polar opposite viewpoints on some major doctrines?
e.g. 1. "is the bible enough for today" versus "God speaks to us outside the bible too"
2. "test all things against the bible" versus "don't judge EVER (you might be blaspheming the Holy Spirit if you judge according to the bible)?"

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for your response. As an ex-Catholic and ex-Charismatic I am probably more narrow-minded than many Christians today. The problem with your statement is that it goes on faith in theory only.

Charismatic churches claim they hold to a superficial version of Protestant beliefs, but they never preach it, defend it, focus on outward signs and wonders, measure a person's faith according to their testimony/ experiences/ tongues and if they preach on sin/ negative commandments (according to the flesh) they mention it in the vaguest way possible...

How can some Baptist preachers justify preaching/ working alongside Charismatics who have the polar opposite viewpoints on some major doctrines?
e.g. 1. "is the bible enough for today" versus "God speaks to us outside the bible too"
2. "test all things against the bible" versus "don't judge EVER (you might be blaspheming the Holy Spirit if you judge according to the bible)?"

I am very sympathetic to your point of view. In my town in the U.K., almost all the churches apart from mine are coming together in an 'evangelistic outreach.' So far, so good, but the outreach is going to major on 'healings, 'prophecies' and 'signs and wonders.' The two Baptist Union churches in the town are taking part and we have been invited, but shall not be doing so. The Gospel will inevitably be sidelined. My church's Basis of faith speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) for all purposes.
2. The Bible
God has revealed himself in the Bible, which consists of the Old and New Testaments alone. Every word was inspired by God through human authors, so that the Bible as originally given is in its entirety the Word of God, without error and fully reliable in fact and doctrine. The Bible alone speaks with final authority and is always sufficient for all matters of belief and practice.

I have underlined what I see as the two most important words.

However, I think it's fair to say that not all charismatics are as bad as you describe them. I am a member of the Gideons, and some of my fellow-members are charismatic. More extreme charismatics are not interested in giving out Bibles and so do not join, and I have not experienced any problems in the Gideon work, though I am glad that some of them are not members of my church!

 

[agedman]

It is referring to the teaching / preaching in the assembly.

The assembly is to guard what is being taught. If it is not Scriptural, set that person outside at the curb as one would any garbage.

By extension, it also concerns having fellowship as a family with such. It is forbidden.

 

[John of Japan]

I interpret the passage as teaching that the foundation (the cornerstone if you will) that we must protect at all costs is Christology, because it says "doctrine of Christ." Once a teacher/preacher or group's Christology is gone, everything is gone: the Mormons, the JWs, the Unification Church, the Christian Scientists, etc. The Catholics generally have correct Christology, except that their doctrine of salvation is all wrong. Technically that is soteriology in modern thinking, but I could see the Apostle John thinking of salvation as part of the "doctrine of Christ." And the Apostle Paul specifically curses those who have a false Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

In the case of the Charismatics, many get their Christology wrong. I think of Joel Osteen, who seems to teach Christ as the path to riches and health--the "health and wealth gospel." Others teach that there are "little gods" or "little Christ's" who can do the same things Christ did, the same miracles, which is the "word of faith" teaching and a terrible heresy based on Latter Rain teachings. I separate from all such in obedience to 2 John 9-11.

 

[agedman]

I interpret the passage as teaching that the foundation (the cornerstone if you will) that we must protect at all costs is Christology, because it says "doctrine of Christ." Once a teacher/preacher or group's Christology is gone, everything is gone: the Mormons, the JWs, the Unification Church, the Christian Scientists, etc. The Catholics generally have correct Christology, except that their doctrine of salvation is all wrong. Technically that is soteriology in modern thinking, but I could see the Apostle John thinking of salvation as part of the "doctrine of Christ." And the Apostle Paul specifically curses those who have a false Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

In the case of the Charismatics, many get their Christology wrong. I think of Joel Osteen, who seems to teach Christ as the path to riches and health--the "health and wealth gospel." Others teach that there are "little gods" or "little Christ's" who can do the same things Christ did, the same miracles, which is the "word of faith" teaching and a terrible heresy based on Latter Rain teachings. I separate from all such in obedience to 2 John 9-11.

Hence, my own struggle with the David Platt, pressent leader of the IMB, who is endorsing “charismatic” gifts. The SBC better deal with this issue, or the churches will chase further into error then they already are.

 

[John of Japan]

Hence, my own struggle with the David Platt, pressent leader of the IMB, who is endorsing “charismatic” gifts. The SBC better deal with this issue, or the churches will chase further into error then they already are.

I'm with you on that.